Tag Archives: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Climate change appears to be altering the flow characteristics
of Puget Sound salmon streams, and the outcome could be an
increased risk of extinction for chinook salmon, according to a new
study.

I’ve long been interested in how new housing and commercial
development brings more impervious surfaces, such as roads,
driveways and roofs. The effect is to decrease the amount of water
that infiltrates into the ground and to increase surface flows into
streams.

Chinook salmonPhoto: Bureau of Land Management

Stormwater experts talk about how streams become “flashy,” as
flows rise quickly when it rains then drop back to low levels,
because less groundwater is available to filter into the
streams.

The new study, reported in the journal “Global
Change Biology,” suggests that something similar may be
happening with climate change but for somewhat different
reasons.

Climate models predict that rains in the Puget Sound region will
become more intense, thus causing streams to rise rapidly even in
areas where stormwater is not an issue. That seems to be among the
recent findings by researchers with NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries
Science Center and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:

“Over the last half century, river flows included in our
analysis have become more variable — particularly in winter — and
these changes are a stronger predictor of chinook population growth
than changes in average winter flows or climate signals in the
marine environment.

“While other impacts to this ecosystem, such as habitat
degradation, may be hypothesized as responsible for these trends in
flow variation, we found support for increasing flow variation in
high-altitude rivers with relatively low human impacts.”

Joseph Anderson of WDFW, an author of the report, told me that
chinook salmon, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act, may be particularly vulnerable to dramatic changes in
streamflows. That’s because spawning chinook tend to show up before
winter storms arrive — when the rivers at their lowest levels. The
fish are forced to lay their eggs in a portion of the river that
will undergo the most forceful flows once the rains begin to
fall.

High flows can scour eggs out of the gravel and create serious
problems for emerging fry, Joe said. Other factors may come into
play, but the researchers found a strong correlation between the
sudden variation in streamflows and salmon survival.

In the lower elevations, where development is focused, flow
variability could result from both impervious surfaces on the land
and more intense rainstorms. Efforts to infiltrate stormwater into
the ground will become even more important as changes in climate
bring more intense storms.

Stormwater management is an issue I’ve written about for years,
including parts of last year’s series called “Taking the Pulse of
Puget Sound.” See
Kitsap Sun, July 16, 2014. Rain gardens, pervious pavement and
infiltration ponds are all part of a growing strategy to increase
groundwater while reducing the “flashiness” of streams.

Other strategies involve restoring rivers to a more natural
condition by rebuilding side channels and flood plains to divert
excess water when streams are running high.

According to the report’s findings, the variability of winter
flows has increased for 16 of the 20 rivers studied, using data
from the U.S. Geological Survey. The only rivers showing less
variability were the Cedar, Duwamish, Upper Skagit and
Nisqually.

The effect of this streamflow variability was shown to be a more
critical factor for chinook survival and growth than peak, total or
average streamflow. Also less of a factor were ocean conditions,
such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and related ocean
temperature.

Eric Ward, of Northwest Fisheries Science Center and lead author
on the study, said many researchers have focused attention on how
higher water temperatures will affect salmon as climate change
progresses. High-temperature and drought conditions in California,
for example, could damage the organs of salmon, such as their
hearts.

Salmon swimming up the Columbia River and its tributaries could
encounter dangerously warm waters as they move east into areas
growing more arid. Some salmon species are more vulnerable to
temperature, while streamflow may be more important for others.
Coho salmon, for example, spend their first summer in freshwater,
which makes extreme low levels a critical factor.

Eric told me that further studies are looking into how various
conditions can affect each stage of a salmon’s life, conditions
that vary by species. One goal is to build complex life-cycle
models for threatened species, such as chinook and steelhead, to
determine their needs under the more extreme conditions we can
expect in the future.

National Marine Fisheries Service has designated more than 1,000
square miles of Puget Sound as “critical habitat” for rockfish — a
colorful, long-lived fish decimated by over-fishing and
environmental problems.

Canary rockfish // Photo
by Tippy Jackson, NOAA

In Hood Canal, we know that thousands of rockfish have been
killed by low-oxygen conditions, and their populations have been
slow to recover because of low reproductive rates. Elsewhere,
rockfish are coming back with mixed success, helped in some
locations by marine protected areas.

The final designation of critical habitat was announced today in
the
Federal Register for yelloweye rockfish and canary rockfish,
both listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act, and
bocaccio, listed as “endangered.”

The critical habitat listing includes 590 square miles of
nearshore habitat for canary rockfish and bocaccio, and 414 square
miles of deepwater habitat for all three species. Nearshore areas
include kelp forests important for the growth and survival of
juvenile rockfish. Deeper waters are used for shelter, food and
reproduction by adults.

Yelloweye rockfishPhoto by Kip Evans, NOAA

Potential critical habitat was reduced by 15 percent for canary
rockfish and bocaccio and by 28 percent for yelloweye rockfish.
Most of the excluded area was deemed already protected, either by
tribes near their reservations or by the military near Navy and
Army bases and their operational areas.

The designated habitat overlaps in large part with existing
critical habitat for salmon, killer whales and bull trout. The only
new areas added without overlap are some deep-water areas in Hood
Canal.

Under the law, federal actions within designated habitat must
undergo consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Such actions — which include funding or issuing permits for private
development — cannot be approved if they are found to be
detrimental to the continuing survival of the species.

“Saving rockfish from extinction requires protecting some of the
most important places they live, and that’s exactly what’s
happening now in the Puget Sound. These habitat protections will
not only give rockfish a fighting chance at survival but will help
all of the animals that live in these waters.”

The three species of rockfish were placed on the Endangered
Species List in 2010, following a series of petitions by biologist
Sam Wright. Last year, the Center for Biological Diversity notified
the National Marine Fisheries Service of its
intent to file a lawsuit over the agency’s delay in designating
critical habitat.

Federal and state biologists are now working on a recovery plan.
I have not heard whether they still hope to get the plan completed
next year.

Rockfish are unusual among bony fishes in that fertilization and
embryo development are internal. Female rockfish give birth to live
young. After birth, the larval rockfish may drift in shallow waters
for several months, feeding on plankton. Among the listed
species:

Canary rockfish can reach up to 2.5 feet in length. Adults have
bright yellow to orange mottling over gray, three orange stripes
across the head and orange fins. They can live to be 75 years
old.

Bocaccio can reach up to 3 feet in length. They have a
distinctively long jaw extending to the eye socket. Adult colors
range from olive to burnt orange or brown. Their age is difficult
to determine, but they may live as long as 50 years.

Yelloweye rockfish can reach up to 3.5 feet in length and 39
pounds in weight. They are orange-red to orange-yellow in color and
may have black on their fin tips. Their eyes are bright yellow.
They are among the longest lived of rockfishes, living up to 118
years.

“These declines have largely been caused by historical fishing
practices, although several other stress factors play a part in
their decline. Rockfish in urban areas are exposed to high levels
of chemical contamination, which may be affecting their
reproductive success. Poor water quality in Hood Canal has resulted
in massive periodic kills of rockfish as well as other species.
Lost or abandoned fishing nets trap and kill large numbers of
rockfish.”

The plan identifies these objectives to restore the
population:

Place the highest priority on protecting and restoring the
natural production of indicator rockfishes to healthy levels,

Promote natural production through the appropriate use of
hatcheries and artificial habitats,

Protect and restore all marine habitat types for all rockfish
species,

Manage all Puget Sound fisheries to ensure the health and
productivity of all rockfish stocks,

Protect and restore existing functions of rockfish in the
complex ecosystem and food web in Puget Sound,

About $22 million in state and federal grants were awarded last
week for Puget Sound ecosystem restoration, another installment in
the struggle to nurse Puget Sound back to health.

About $12 million in state and federal funds came through the
Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program, or ESRP, under the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. As the name suggests,
these funds are focused on improving nearshore and ecosystem
processes.

Another $10 million came from the Puget Sound Acquisition and
Restoration (PSAR) Fund, which is focused mainly on salmon
restoration. More of those funds will be awarded before the end of
the year.

Reporter Tad Sooter and I wrote about the West Sound projects in
Friday’s Kitsap Sun (subscription required), focusing a good
deal of our attention on a key acquisition of property on the
Bainbridge Island shoreline along Agate Passage.

The property includes 4.5 acres of tidelands, including 550 feet
of undeveloped beach, along with 7.5 acres of upland woods and
meadows, all to be preserved by the Bainbridge Island Land
Trust.

Brenda Padgham, stewardship director for land trust, told Tad
that this property is one of the last intact nearshore habitats on
Bainbridge Island. “The whole reach is so pristine,” she said.

Of the $1.2 million provided for the Bainbridge Island purchase,
$810,000 came from the PSAR funds and $396,000 came from the
ESRP.

Betsy Lions, who manages the ESRP for the Department of Fish and
Wildlife, said most of that money this year will go toward removing
unnecessary bulkheads, replacing culverts that block salmon passage
and restoring tidal functions.

“These projects will increase salmon populations while giving a
boost to the economy. Salmon are important economically to
Washington state and these projects will provide construction jobs
and help countless numbers of Washington families and businesses,
including tackle shops, charter operators, restaurants and hotels,
that rely on the world-renowned Pacific salmon.”

David Troutt, chairman of the SRF Board and natural resources
director of the Nisqually Tribe, made this comment:

“Puget Sound Chinook are about one-third as abundant as they
were a century ago. As we have developed our urban and rural
landscapes, we’ve damaged many of the estuaries, floodplains and
rivers that salmon need to survive. These projects have been
selected as ones that will make big impacts on Puget Sound and
salmon recovery. Those two things go hand in hand. Puget Sound
needs healthy salmon, and salmon need a healthy Puget Sound.”

The 11 PSAR projects are outlined in a
document (PDF 106 kb) on the state Recreation and Conservation
Office’s website. By the way, projects in Hood Canal were held up
until October, as members of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council
continue discussions about priorities.

Opreys eat fish almost exclusively, which is why they nest near
water. Adults typically hover over the water before they drop like
a rock and dive feet first, grabbing fish with their sharp talons.
The young will begin exercising their wings before they take their
first flights and learn to fish.

OTHER LIVE OSPREYCAMS

Hog Island ospreycam is managed by Audubon on
Hog Island near Bremen, Maine. These ospreys laid their eggs about
the end of April.

Cape Cod
ospreycam monitors a nest at the Cape Cod Museum of Natural
History in Brewster, Mass.

Pintail duck
wildlife cam in the Prairie Pothole Region near Egeland, N.D.
The eggs were laid May 16 and should hatch at any time, but
long-term prospects for the ducklings are not good. Previous
research in the area has shown that the likelihood of surviving
predators and other threats is about 5 percent.

Elephant seal
cam located between San Simeon and the Piedras Blancas Light
Station on the Pacific Coast of California. The webcam is a joint
project of Friends of the Elephant Seal and California State
Parks.

Salmoncam
shows salmon returning to Issaquah Hatchery, operated by WDFW. The
camera in the holding pool shows a still photo that refreshes every
10 seconds.

It’s not often that we get to talk about a new environmental
group in the Puget Sound region. We have a lot of existing groups,
to be sure, but I can’t recall when the last one came into
existence.

Whether Sound Action is
actually a new group can be debated, since its core leaders come
from Preserve Our Islands, the organization that battled the gravel
mining operation on Maury Island. But I consider it a new group,
because Sound Action has a new, clearly defined mission, not
focused on a single development but on protecting shoreline
habitats throughout Puget Sound.

The group will begin by keeping its eye on hydraulic project
approvals issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The group’s audit of
290 past HPAs (PDF 3.3 mb) purports to show that adequate
restrictions were not imposed in many cases where shoreline
habitats and species needed to be protected.

Randi Thurston of WDFW disputes the report’s methods and
conclusions, as I mention in my story published in
today’s Kitsap Sun.

Those overall findings and statistics may make little difference
in the long run, however. More interesting will be the deficiencies
the group discovers as it goes about reviewing every permit issued
by WDFW — the express goal of Amy Carey, the group’s executive
director.

“Our intent here isn’t to be adversarial,” she told me
yesterday. “We want to be supportive of DFW and help them fix the
problem. … Reasonably good laws have been on the books for decades,
but we have agencies that just don’t say no.”

When it comes to specific permits, it will be easier to discuss
what conditions exist at a specific site, what data are available
about the particular shoreline, what permit conditions are
mandatory and what conditions would be advisable to add some
measure of protection.

I can’t see how another set of eyes or even a differing opinion
can hurt if the goal is to protect the environment, and maybe this
effort will make a big difference in restoring Puget Sound to
health. Of course, if the goal is to approve shoreline developments
as quickly as possible, then regulations and oversight just get in
the way.

Here are the goals, as described by Sound Action:

In our new work, Sound Action will be reviewing each Puget
Sound-based HPA as it comes under the consideration of WDFW to
ensure that all applicable environmental regulations are
applied.

In the event that science-based information is missing or
overlooked by WDFW, we will present detailed documentation on
species and habitats present as well as impacts of the
proposal.

If a permit is approved which does not contain appropriate
provisions or is approved in violation of state law, Sound Action
will pursue appeal and legal action.

Sound Action will expand its watchdog role to other regulatory
areas in Puget Sound, but its first task is to focus on the state
HPA program to make sure each permit does what the law requires and
that the program is functioning and providing habitat protection.
Not only is this required by law, it also supports the state
mandate to restore Puget Sound by 2020.

It appears that the findings of the report are substantially the
same as what I reported in a
Kitsap Sun story on May 6. If you haven’t read the story, I
think you will find all the comments interesting.

The next step will be for NOAA officials to issue
recommendations from the report. In light of the findings and the
uncertainty about the effects of reduced fishing, it seems likely
that more studies will be proposed rather than an immediate
adjustment to harvest.

I’ll continue to follow this story through the public review
process, which is planned for early next year. Updates and related
documents can be found on
NOAA’s website.

The management plan for Puget Sound chinook fisheries will
remain in effect through next year, after which time it will need
to be updated in consultation between state and federal agencies.
Chinook are a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species
Act. See
NOAA’s webpage, “Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management
Plan.”

At times, it seems a little voyeuristic to watch wild creatures
behaving naturally, unaware that eyes from all over the world may
be watching them via the Internet.

One of the most engaging critter cams is set up at a place
called Pete’s Pond, located in the Mashatu Game Reserve in eastern
Botswana. The pond lies at confluence of the Limpopo and Shashe
rivers in a region that combines dry savannah, riverine forests and
soggy marshes.

As I write this on Monday morning, several giraffes have come to
the waterhole, where it is late Monday afternoon. Last night
(Monday morning at the pond), I spotted a lone jackal wandering
near the water.

The viewing is enhanced significantly by volunteers from around
the world who take turns aiming the cameras and zooming in on
interesting activities taking place. I love the sounds of the pond
almost as much as the sights, but an ongoing clicking sound on the
audio this morning detracted from the natural sounds.

Late afternoon in Botswana (morning here) seems to be an active
time, but apparently different animals show up at the pond at all
times of the day and night, and I find it interesting to watch and
listen even when things seem completely serene.

I’ve mentioned other wildlife cams on this blog (See
Water Ways, March 3, 2011). Technical difficulties always seem
to be a factor in keeping these remote cameras in operation.

For the WildWatch
Cams managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
it does not help that the department has been through some massive
budget cuts. Staff efforts on these live videos has been reduced,
and some are not in operation. But a few seem to be working fine.
Try Batcam,Heroncam,Sealcam
and Swiftcam.

If you are aware of other good critter cams working at the
moment, feel free to pass them along.

Forecasts for Puget Sound salmon runs call for lower returns
this year compared to last year, but officials with the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife are emphasizing “promising” chinook
fishing off Washington’s coast and Columbia River.

Each year, sport fishers
line the banks of the Skokomish River as they try to catch the
prized chinook salmon. /Kitsap Sun file
photo

Preseason forecasts were released yesterday, launching the North
of Falcon Process, which involves state and tribal salmon managers
working together to set sport, commercial and tribal fisheries.
Federal biologists and regulators keep watch over the negotiations
to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

For a complete schedule of meetings leading up to final
decisions the first week of April, go to the WDFW’s North of Falcon
page.

With regard to fishing opportunities, Doug Milward, ocean salmon
fishery manager for the agency, had this to say in yesterday’s news
release:

“It’s still early in the process, but we will likely have an
ocean salmon fishery similar to what we have seen the last two
years, when we had an abundance of chinook in the ocean but low
numbers of hatchery coho.”

Given the excitement of the moment, including comments over the
radio, some people still believe that L-90, a 19-year-old female
orca named Ballena, was struck by a boat off the west side of San
Juan Island on Friday.

An experienced driver for the Prince of Whales whale-watching
company was mentioned as a likely witness.

I talked to a spokeswoman for the company who told me that
nobody she knows has any pictures. The only interviews granted by
staff were with enforcement officers for the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife.

Sgt. Russ Mullins, one of the WDFW officers who patrols that
area, said he has investigated the incident. As best as he can
tell, no collision occurred.

“Nobody witnessed an actual strike,” he told me. “It was a close
call perhaps, but we do not have vessel-related injuries on this
animal.”

Here are some of the details that Sgt. Mullins reported:

The boat reportedly involved in the incident was a slow-moving
liveaboard passing through the area. The speed was about 7 knots.
Mullins does not know why some news reports mentioned a high-speed
boat, except for the possible assumption that only a fast-moving
boat was likely to strike a killer whale.

A witness on the Prince of Whales boat told officers that the
orca in question and possibly others surfaced some 20 feet off the
bow the boat, which then stopped for a short time before leaving
the area.

The whale was acting sluggish, barely moving and logging on the
surface for quite some time. That behavior led people in the area
to believe a collision had occurred. Comments to that effect went
out over the radio.

“I heard the transmission,” Mullins said. “The close proximity,
combined with the unusual behavior of the whale, led some people to
think it had been struck. We assume the worst. As primary law
enforcement for the area we have a responsibility to respond…”

Another patrol boat quickly tracked down the suspect vessel.

“We talked to the skipper, who was very concerned,” Mullins
said. “He did not appear to be the kind of person who would strike
a whale and knowingly leave.”

Mullins said he stayed with the group of whales for 10 hours,
including part of Saturday. During that time, they passed the town
of Friday Harbor, where they became as active as he’s ever seen
them.

Technically, the driver of the boat was in violation of the
protective zone around the whales, 100 yards under state law and 200 yards
under
federal law. That applies even when the whales catch up to a
boat going the same direction, but officers have discretion to
consider the conditions.

Mullins said his department plans to issue a written warning to
the driver of the boat and refer all the information to officials
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“This guy’s biggest mistake is not being aware of his
surroundings,” the sergeant said, “but when the whales were within
his view, he took appropriate action.”

For years, I’ve heard complaints about tribal fishing. Frankly,
many people who complain about tribal fishing, or commercial
fishing in general, have no understanding of treaty rights or how
individual salmon stocks are managed.

Tarboo BayWashington Department of Ecology photo

Most don’t care about the work that goes into long-range
management plans, preseason forecasts or computer models of harvest
options, which make it possible to manage fisheries with
concurrence of state, tribal and federal entities. Most folks with
concerns wouldn’t think of accepting the public invitation to join
the annual discussions about harvest.

Occasionally, however, someone raises a concern that resonates
with managers and biologists who understand the issues. Such is the
case with fishing in Tarboo Bay, a story I told in
Friday’s Kitsap Sun.

It all comes down to a simple proposition: If salmon management
plans are working, then why aren’t we getting more chum and coho
into Tarboo Creek? Should we be content with ongoing productivity
well below what the stream appears capable of supporting?

Putting politics aside, should the overall management plan for
Hood Canal strive for some minimum escapement or maximum
exploitation rate on individual streams? Oh, what a complex plan
that would be! But if low escapement creates sustainability
problems on any stream, then someone needs to take a serious look
and not be hampered by plans that consider Hood Canal coho and chum
as aggregate stocks for all Hood Canal.

Maybe we should elevate Tarboo Bay to a test case, first with
some monitoring to determine the stock composition of the tribal
beach seine in question. If it turns out that this is an
all-or-nothing fishery, then one answer would be to move the
closure line farther out into Dabob Bay, as managers for the state
and two tribes agreed to do.

Beyond that, however, perhaps more attention should be given to
individual streams, their carrying capacity and trade-offs between
harvest and escapement. Interesting studies have been conducted for
listed species and a few other stocks in Hood Canal. See “Mid-Hood Canal
Juvenile Salmonid Evaluation…” But the need to improve
escapements of all species remains a concern.

I’m tempted to say that this is an emperor-has-no-clothes moment
when it comes to fisheries in Hood Canal, but I don’t believe
that’s accurate. It may seem that everybody understands the problem
and nobody wants to speak out. In reality, the problems are many;
they vary from place to place; and lots of people are speaking
out.

Maybe it is more like a house of cards that continues to grow.
Many weaknesses are found in the structure, but only so many can be
fixed at one time. So people just keep going, hoping for the
best.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has developed a
management framework to address these kinds of issues. See “21st Century Salmon and
Steelhead Initiative.” It seems like a good start, but the
agency must not forget that restoration comes together
stream-by-stream for harvest as well as for habitat.

Consider these goals, among others, spelled out in the
initiative:

— Expand selective fisheries to
increase opportunities for recreational and commercial fishing on
hatchery fish and reduce the harvest of wild salmon.

— Monitor numbers of juvenile fish
that migrate to marine areas and adult fish that return to fresh
water to spawn to determine effectiveness of conservation and
recovery actions.

— Work with our tribal co-managers in
each watershed to develop joint state/tribal hatchery and harvest
management objectives and plans.

— Coordinate law enforcement with our
tribal partners.

As local groups — including the tribes — work hard to remove
barriers to salmon passage and improve habitat in specific streams,
there is a growing recognition that individual streams can support
more salmon than has been possible in the past. Maybe it is time to
test the limits of the habitat for selected streams, understanding
that decreased harvest in the short term could well translate to
greater terminal fisheries in the future.